1/6/2003: Speeding duck

[Stress Puppy]

Originally posted by quzah

I'm vegan. Hunting makes me sad. In general I'm not a big fan of things dying. I'm not fond of death in general...

...except when I'm shooting people in a game. Then it's fun. Time for some more Delta Force...

Quzah.

Ditto that. Vegan also, and I really dislike thinking about hurting something else..... games don't count though, 'cause you're not actually hurting anything ) (Gotta get out aggression -somehow- eh?)

[99 44/100% pure]

Originally posted by Undertoad
. . . In the US, municipalities have tried putting cameras on traffic lights, catching people who are running the red light. They notice two things. One, revenue from traffic tickets goes way up. Two, safety goes way down.

Well, as it happens, I just ran across an article in last Sunday's Baltimore Sun that touts the benefits of red-light cameras. (Yes, I read the Sunday paper on Wednesday; sue me.)

I tried to put the url here but it didn't work because the stupid site requires registration, and -- I'm sorry -- but who's going to bother to do that, right?

So, I thought I'd at least quote some useful data, since the headline for the article is
"Traffic deaths down 20% in city, police say" and the subhead is
"No fatal crashes reported at red-light camera areas" -- but, alas, this is the Baltimore Sun, after all, so no useful information was detailed therein. Like, just for grins, how about telling us how many fatal crashes there were at red-light camera areas before the cameras were installed?

*sigh* Oh, nevermind.

[Torrere]

Originally posted by quzah


"Wreckless endangerment."

Awesome spelling error.

[perth]

Originally posted by Torrere


Awesome spelling error.

i thought he did it on purpose.

~james

[henry fitch]

See, there's a tradeoff. As 90-odd% Pure states, they reduce traffic deaths. At the same time, they increase property-damaging rearenders. Worth it?

[Torrere]

Originally posted by perth

i thought he did it on purpose.

~james

So did I, which was why I didn't use "typo". I also thought "intentional spelling error" would sound stupidly verbose.

[quzah]

Originally posted by Torrere
So did I, which was why I didn't use "typo". I also thought "intentional spelling error" would sound stupidly verbose.

I actually don't know if I did it on purpose. I was um... mentally incapasicated at the time. I was either being incredibly witty, or it was a typo. I really don't know (or remember) which it was. Because it makes me look fiendishly clever, I'll opt for intentional.

Quzah.

[99 44/100% pure]

Originally posted by henry fitch
. . . As 90-odd% Pure states, they reduce traffic deaths. . .

Hey, I didn't state anything of the sort -- I was merely trying to point out that I couldn't find any reliable data on whether these cameras had, indeed reduced traffic deaths, or even changed driver behavior, for that matter. The headline states that traffic deaths are down overall in the city, and that "no fatal crashes reported at red-light areas," but nowhere in the article do they report what number of fatalities occurred at these intersections before the cameras were used, nor do they even imply (much less provide data to support), that fatalities overall are down due to this technology.

I have not formulated an opinion one way or the other, as I don't have enough information. My own experience is that I tend to stop, rather than go through an early yellow at a known camera intersection, but not if I'm near the end of the yellow with a tailgater behind me (don't want to get rear-ended).

I was just enjoying the opportunity to impugn the quality and reputation of the Baltimore Sun, a known lefty-rag, as I believed some readers here would enjoy that immensely.

[perth]

Originally posted by Torrere


So did I, which was why I didn't use "typo". I also thought "intentional spelling error" would sound stupidly verbose.

~james